Judgment SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. In this petition, under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in the reserve category for ex-serviceman after declaring the result of the petitioner of the entrance test for admission to O.T. (Hindi) course 2000-2001. Admittedly, there is hardly any controversy in regard to the facts stated in the petition. The basic question for determination before the Court is with regard to effect of the instructions issued by the Government dated 7-8-2000, copy whereof has been annexed to the reply as Annexure R.1. on the terms and conditions of the brochure, authority of the State to issue such instructions. 2. The petitioner is a resident of District Rohtak. He claimed to be ex-serviceman. In response to the prospectus issued by the State of Haryana inviting applications for admission to various courses including that of O.T. (Hindi), the petitioner submitted his application under the category of ex-serviceman being desirous of pursuing the said O.T. (Hindi) course. The course code of O.T. (Hindi) was 03 while the category under which the petitioner had applied was 08. The petitioner was issued Roll No. 317752 under that category and he appeared in the entrance test. The result of admission to the said course was declared in the newspaper. The petitioner did not find his roll number there. According to the petitioner, no candidate was granted seat under that category despite one per cent reservation under note (ii) under the terms of the brochure. The petitioner was, thus, compelled to file the present petition. 3. As already noticed that the facts in the present petition are not disputed. The respondents admit that the brochure did provide for one per cent reservation for ex-serviceman, however, such prescription was subject to the General reservation policy of the Haryana Government under the instructions. The reservation for ex-serviceman, was withdrawn and it was provided in favour of physically handicapped category under the instruments issued by the Central Govenment as well as by the State Government. Thus, the petitioner and/or any candidate under category 08 was not given admission in the said course. 4. The reservation for ex-serviceman, was withdrawn and it was provided in favour of physically handicapped category under the instruments issued by the Central Govenment as well as by the State Government. Thus, the petitioner and/or any candidate under category 08 was not given admission in the said course. 4. At this stage, it will be appropriate to note the relevant extract of the prospectus governing the controversy in this respect "RESERVATION Reservation to different categories will be given as under : 1. Sheduled Castes 10% A Block 10% B Block 2. Backward Classes 16% A Block 10% B Block 3. 1% Physically Handicapped (disability not less than 40%) 4. Dependent of Freedom Fighters 1% 5. Ex-servicemen and their wards 1% 1% Horizontal reservation would also be given to widows/legally deserted/legally divorced ladies. Note : (i) A candidate belonging to Reserve Category should clearly mention the category they belong so that they could be given the benefit of reservation as per Haryana Govt. instructions." 5. A bare reading of the above clause shows that the reservation of seats is subject to and is controlled by the reservation policy of the State Government. According to the State, the brochure was published somewhere in May 2000 and the instructions Annexure R.I annexed to the reply were issued by the Government on 7-8-2000. The last date for submission of the applications was 15-11-2000 and entrance test was held on 17-12-2000. In other words, all concerned and effective parties/candidates were informed well in advance of the policy of the State dated 7-8-2000. Thus the terms of the brochure have not been altered in a manner which may prejudice the interest of the candidates without prior notice. The alteration, if any, was made even prior to the last date of the applications and, as such, we are unable to see any error on the part of the State in implementing its policy dated 7-8-2000. 6. Furthermore, the instructions were issued by the Government for compliance of the earlier decision taken by the Government on 5-5-1999 and are in furtherance to the discharge of the statutory obligation upon the Central and the State Government as provided under "The persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Participation) Act, 1995." 7. The government, thus, varied the reservations only to the extent that the physically handicapped category was given precedemt over the other categories. The government, thus, varied the reservations only to the extent that the physically handicapped category was given precedemt over the other categories. In the event, the physically handicapped categories were not available, seats were reverted back to the other categories like freedom fighter, ex-serviceman etc. Therefore, the decision of the State Government to effectively implement its policy entertained to secure the interest of the physically handicapped category in precedence to other such category cannot be termed as arbitrary or ill-founded. This does not offend the protection given under the principles of equality enshrined under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is admitted case before us that no seat of handicapped category remained vacant or unfilled which in term could be made available to the category of the petitioner. 8. For the afore-stated reasons, we find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. V